US third party voting (esp. Gary Johnson)

For those who voted for a third party candidate, were the results of this election an endorsement or a repudiation of your party's philosophy or legitimacy? What about candidates representing other political parties? How will the results of this election affect future access to the US electoral process?

I don't think we'll have three successful parties in the US anytime soon, though I think the Duverger's Law absolutists overstate the case. Somewhat more likely, though still very unlikely, is that one of the existing parties will be replaced (a la the whigs).

The best to realistically hope for is to highlight certain issues / positions and drag one or both parties in a different direction. Inasmuch as there were poor showing this election is unlikely to be a success in that regard.

That said, no outcome is capable of refuting a philosophy. Popularity is irrelevant to correctness. I'll continue to vote for the candidate who position I least despise in all but the absolutely closest elections (where I'll vote strategically).

I'm really asking about the personal feeling/motivations for 3rd-party voting in the US (esp. in the wake of the election results) --

(And for the record, I'm a GJ voter, but I won't lose a nanosecond of sleep over an Obama win, either.)

I voted third party because I believe it is my duty to vote for the person I think will do the best job. Period.

The two party system is in place because they forced the whole "defensive voting" mindset, which conveniently keeps them in power. The day I even consider defensively voting for someone I disapprove is the day I quit voting and stay at home.

Call me old fashioned, call it a quaint idea, but I still believe that a voice in who gets elected is one of the greatest freedoms we have in America, and I'll be damned if I'm not going to use my voice the way I see fit, not based on partisan fear mongering. Believing that the Dems and Repubs have this country so divvied up, bought, and sold that we have no choice but between Kang and Kronos is too depressing even for me.

I did a write in vote for Rocky Anderson that won't even be counted in my state, and I'd do the same in a heartbeat. If the election came down to an exact tie and they asked me to cast the deciding vote between Romney and Obama, I'd do the same. If my voting for Anderson garaunteed a Romney victory, I wouldn't change my vote.

I was hoping to see Johnson hit his 5% in at least a few states, looks like the closest he got was 2.9% in Montana.

I typically vote 3rd party in any uncontested election that has a third party. But I'm under no delusions that it makes any sort of difference.

Nationally, a third party has no chance without a big name candidate, probably one that can self-fund a lot of the early stages. The currently existing party structure of the third party isn't going to make a difference in their viability, such a person would be as successful as a Independent as aligned with a Minority party.

Locally, you can probably be viable as an individual candidate, but I suspect if a party started to get any real momentum, the major party national money would show up to deliver a crushing blow and end the movement. I'm not aware of any viable third parties, even in areas that are completely dominated one of the national parties. For example, Chicago has coalitions and internal caucuses, but they all run as Democrats.

I've seen him go a bit 'viral', almost a badge of pride for people to say "I'm voting Gary Johnson! See how unique and smart I am?"

While I can agree with more than half of his politics, and absolutely love his use of the veto...some of his politics are abhorrent to me. His ideals of minimization of taxes and privatization of many things smack greatly of Ayn Randism....and, frankly, Ayn Randism is insane. His proposed cuts to entitlement progams are frightening (and I say that as a 2%er)

Are people really that ready to abandon social support systems in favor of idealism?

I've seen him go a bit 'viral', almost a badge of pride for people to say "I'm voting Gary Johnson! See how unique and smart I am?"

While I can agree with more than half of his politics, and absolutely love his use of the veto...some of his politics are abhorrent to me. His ideals of minimization of taxes and privatization of many things smack greatly of Ayn Randism....and, frankly, Ayn Randism is insane. His proposed cuts to entitlement progams are frightening (and I say that as a 2%er)

Are people really that ready to abandon social support systems in favor of idealism?

I expect most of the people who seriously want him to win don't feel they use those support systems, and the primary use is abuse. Combined with some "rising tide lifts all ships."

Personally, I think the reality of bureaucratic inertia and checks & balances would prevent his more extreme ideas from gaining any momentum as president. Without support of the courts and congress, the areas where he could act would be limited. I'd also think you'd see the legislative branch leap back from the acquiescing to the unitary executive theory they've been letting happen, which could be a boon (pretending we had a functional congress).

I've seen him go a bit 'viral', almost a badge of pride for people to say "I'm voting Gary Johnson! See how unique and smart I am?"

While I can agree with more than half of his politics, and absolutely love his use of the veto...some of his politics are abhorrent to me. His ideals of minimization of taxes and privatization of many things smack greatly of Ayn Randism....and, frankly, Ayn Randism is insane. His proposed cuts to entitlement progams are frightening (and I say that as a 2%er)

Are people really that ready to abandon social support systems in favor of idealism?

I was thinking this way myself up until close to the election, but then Alamount pointed out that you don't have to agree with 100% of a candidate's positions when you are casting a protest vote.

So long as you agree with their most prominent positions it sends the message you want to send.

(And for the record, I'm a GJ voter, but I won't lose a nanosecond of sleep over an Obama win, either.)

Do you mind if I ask about this? Gary Johnson and Barack Obama were worlds apart on some fairly substantial issues, like social policy, foreign policy, economic policy, and the fundamental role of the federal government in science, education, the environment, etc.

Do you mind if I ask about this? Gary Johnson and Barack Obama were worlds apart on some fairly substantial issues, like social policy, foreign policy, economic policy, and the fundamental role of the federal government in science, education, the environment, etc.

I voted GJ with the hope of expanding 3rd party access.

His libertarian positions are mostly irrelevant at this point as there was no chance he would be elected. He also isn't aligned with hard-line socialism or communism like the rest of candidates on the FL ballot were.

Do you mind if I ask about this? Gary Johnson and Barack Obama were worlds apart on some fairly substantial issues, like social policy, foreign policy, economic policy, and the fundamental role of the federal government in science, education, the environment, etc.

I voted GJ with the hope of expanding 3rd party access.

His libertarian positions are mostly irrelevant at this point as there was no chance he would be elected. He also isn't aligned with hard-line socialism or communism like the rest of candidates on the FL ballot were.

I'm okay with Obama in that I'm okay with realpolitik. And, IMO, once elected, especially in an environment where libertarians aren't a majority party by any means, Gary Johnson would be too. You know, that governenance experience and all. So, you have someone slanted towards less government interference in all things, versus one only on social issues .. Welp. It'd take a fundamental change in American politics for any real libertarian governance. One election isn't going to do it.

I did a write-in vote for Pat Sajack as president this election, mainly because he had a funny name (didn't know he was extremely conservative until after the election).

Md is Strongly Obama so my vote wouldn't count, though if I had lived in a battleground state I would have voted for him. Briefly I considered voting for the Green party but then remembered 2000, where Ralph Nader cost Gore the election in Florida. The problem with voting third party is the Nader\Gore effect, most if not all Nader votes would have preferred Gore to Bush but because they didn't vote for Gore Bush was elected. Something similar happened in 92 where Perot helped elect Clinton.

In national races if you hate the way your party is going and don't mind the other side winning for a bit then I can understand voting for a 3rd party. There's some conservatives at work that aren't racist and don't hate Obama, but dislike Bush\Romney. They voted for Johnson. At the same time I can't imagine in my lifetime the Democrats ever being that bad or the Republicans being that meh that I wouldn't mind them taking office.

In local elections a 3rd party is fine, there they can actually win. Nationally, if my vote counts then I'm going with one of the big two. If it doesn't count then I'll do a protest vote.

The two party system is in place because they forced the whole "defensive voting" mindset, which conveniently keeps them in power.

Holy crap, there are people who actually seriously believe this? The two party system is in place because the United States has simple First Past the Post voting, end of story. If you want that to change (and a lot of us do) then you should work towards upgrading the voting system to something more fair, which would be basically anything at all. Simple FPTP is pretty much bottom of the barrel, about the absolute worst system while still qualifying as democratic (because a candidate that gets the majority of the vote will in fact win).

This isn't some sort of big conspiracy by "Them". It's simply because the United States was first. It was in many ways a grand experiment, and while the Founders, even in retrospect, were truly amazing they couldn't know everything and did make mistakes. Other countries that came later were able to look at decades of US government in action and then fix some of the more obvious stuff while framing their constitutions. It's much, MUCH easier to get it closer to right the first time then to change it later, particularly when it's something so foundational. In fact, the very nature of the problems FPTP causes makes it harder to change it (since it's harder to get anyone else).

So if you, or the OP, are serious about 3rd parties that's where to get to work. Try to start with your own town/city, that's what we've done. State would then be the next step. If we can get a lot of states with better systems, then at that point I feel pretty confident that we could get it done nationally. It's a problem that does lend itself well to bottom-up work happily, every area of voting that gets better helps people get used to change and then to expect it.

Quote:

The day I even consider defensively voting for someone I disapprove is the day I quit voting and stay at home.

Or the day you grow up, at least under the present system.

Quote:

Call me old fashioned, call it a quaint idea, but I still believe that a voice in who gets elected is one of the greatest freedoms we have in America, and I'll be damned if I'm not going to use my voice the way I see fit, not based on partisan fear mongering. Believing that the Dems and Repubs have this country so divvied up, bought, and sold that we have no choice but between Kang and Kronos is too depressing even for me.

I'm not going to call you old fashioned but I will call you naive, or perhaps you just haven't thought it through. It's not entirely impossible to elect independents anywhere in the Federal Government, we do have a few Congressmen or are I. But it's an incredibly high bar, even for a single state, and seems to be highly situational. I hope you at least acknowledge that.

Holy crap, there are people who actually seriously believe this? The two party system is in place because the United States has simple First Past the Post voting, end of story.

If that was true, you wouldn't have 1 party unopposed in most local elections. The two party system for the presidency might be caused by first past the post, but the fact that the same two parties are the only viable option in basically every election at every level in the entire country is not caused by those elections being first past the post.

Briefly I considered voting for the Green party but then remembered 2000, where Ralph Nader cost Gore the election in Florida. The problem with voting third party is the Nader\Gore effect, most if not all Nader votes would have preferred Gore to Bush but because they didn't vote for Gore Bush was elected.

As a top-of-the-ticket green voter in a battle-ground state, and a so-called "Nader traitor" in the 2000 election, I feel compelled to point out this notion seems based on a commonly held myth. Both the Buchanan and Nader voters were not committed partisans. At least one study of the 2000 Florida vote showed pushing the lever for Nader did not necessarily equal a siphon away from Gore. These voters were "strikingly" non-partisan.

Holy crap, there are people who actually seriously believe this? The two party system is in place because the United States has simple First Past the Post voting, end of story.

If that was true, you wouldn't have 1 party unopposed in most local elections. The two party system for the presidency might be caused by first past the post, but the fact that the same two parties are the only viable option in basically every election at every level in the entire country is not caused by those elections being first past the post.

You aren't considering second and third level emergent effects. Simple FPTP strongly mathematically favors two parties, but it applies most strongly as the numbers increase (thus bringing the situation closer to an idealized mass prionser's dilemma). So it's strongest for the Presidency, then the Senate, and so on.

However, that has ripple effects. Two parties gaining the most power nationally for Presidency and Congress means they will have an utterly overwhelming advantage in terms of fund raising and mind power. In turn, that strong reinforces their efforts at every level farther down, and that in turn allows them to more easily gerrymander, further locking in their advantages. It's not just one thing, it becomes a self-reinforcing circle. But a great deal of it stems from the most fundamental system level.

Strategic voting just plain makes sense, because much as it's a popular meme on parts of the Internet the Democrats and Republicans are not in fact the same. As long as there are major issues dividing them, issues that really matter to many people, there will in turn be a powerful incentive to do what it takes to make sure the less worse choice wins. If you don't provide a way to acknowledge that and let people support their best choice then the result shouldn't be surprising.

There are shitloads of places with FPTP elections which don't have two parties constantly dominating and monopolizing the entire electoral and political systems of their respective countries, let alone the same-two-parties ad nauseam.

Why? All I had to do to prove xoa wrong was show that FPTP is not by itself a sufficient condition to explaining the U.S. political party situation.

That said, I'm not super clear on why that matters all on its own. What facets of a parliamentary system make it less prone to single-party or dual-party intransigence? For what seem like the relevant characteristics on the issue, Congress isn't all that different than British Parliament; for example. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

You proved nothing. You merely said it was. Merely saying you proved it is just you blowing hot, albeit empty, air.

In almost all parliamentary countries, the PM is chosen by the majority coalition, not the single party that gets the highest electoral vote, which is even worse than the PV. There is no FPTP for executive at all. Also, most also have some proportional representation provisions so that a party that reaches a fairly small threshold must be seated in parliaments. This results in almost permanent small parties in the legislature that can act as kingmakers and make demands in close elections.

Costa Rica has a FPTP presidential system, they've got 4 major parties in the legislature and another 4 or 5 with a single seat. They do have a runoff election if the plurality winner doesn't get 40%, but IMO that doesn't break the concept.

You proved nothing. You merely said it was. Merely saying you proved it is just you blowing hot, albeit empty, air.

In almost all parliamentary countries, the PM is chosen by the majority coalition, not the single party that gets the highest electoral vote, which is even worse than the PV. There is no FPTP for executive at all. Also, most also have some proportional representation provisions so that a party that reaches a fairly small threshold must be seated in parliaments. This results in almost permanent small parties in the legislature that can act as kingmakers and make demands in close elections.

You can look it up yourself in about 3 fucking seconds, and I already previously compiled a list of such countries in a different thread about this issue a few weeks ago. I'm not doing it again.

Is the entire legislature FPTP, or do they also have required representation for smaller parties?

Just looked it up.. proportional representation for the legislature.

Whatever, I'll keep playing, despite the moving target.

The Philippines uses FPTP for president, vice president, senate and partially for its house of representatives.

Zambia uses FPTP for its president and it's unicamerial legislature, except for the 8 seats appointed by the president. They had 3 parties with over 18% in the most recent election, and the assembly is divided among those three parties, with two seats by other parties.

In almost any country with some sort of FPTP system, the executive branch is not part of it.

Which is merely proof that most British colonies adopted the British system of government, and entirely unrelated to the topic at hand. Even if the United States is the only country that meets your ever narrowing criteria, that doesn't prove your point. It just means we'll be unable to convince each other.

What goal post shifting? A system that has proportional representation in national legislature is not FPTP, even if it is for some positions. The US is unique in that not only are both houses in the legislature FPTP, but the executive is as well, along with "winner take all" electors on a per state basis.

Philipine senators are elected at large, as are some of the lower house members, allowing for minority parties to have a place. The Presidency though, is even more fucked than here because it has no runoff. The current president won with only 42% of the vote. There was one election in which the president there got elected with only 25% of the vote.

What goal post shifting? A system that has proportional representation in national legislature is not FPTP, even if it is for some positions. The US is unique in that not only are both houses in the legislature FPTP, but the executive is as well, along with "winner take all" electors on a per state basis.

Costa Rica is not a parliamentary system, and requires no formal coalitions. After it was offered, we moved to every level of government must be FPTP, instead of that being covered by "secondary and tertiary effects"

I was pointing out differences among other Western countries. I did not know I had to give a dissertation in response to a simple assertion.

In countries in which some sort of proportional representation and at large representation are written into election law, there are some permanent minority parties that can help provide a majority, and thus exercise power. This is furthered in parliamentary systems in which a coalition may be needed to select an executive.

It matters because in many cases a lot of political power is invested in the executive. In many of these countries, the fact that the parliament selects the President allows minority parties to exercise power when elections are close.

So? What does that have to do with anything? The fact that Congress doesn't select the President or PM would seem to indicate it'd be even more likely for multiple parties to exist since there's no additional driving force to coalesce into a monolithic block that can constantly wield and manipulate the power of the Executive. Minority parties being able to hold sway over selecting the Executive is an argument for them being co-opted and rolled into larger coalitions, not for them to maintain independence.

Philipine senators are elected at large, as are some of the lower house members, allowing for minority parties to have a place. The Presidency though, is even more fucked than here because it has no runoff. The current president won with only 42% of the vote. There was one election in which the president there got elected with only 25% of the vote.

If you're saying this discounts the example, it would be another narrowing the criteria. Now not only do we need FPTP election at the for the president, a non parliamentary system, no required coalitions, and FPTP for the legislative branch, but we also need the legislature to be selected by constituencies. Not single representative constituencies mind you, just not full country constituencies.